Now asylum if you're gay

ASYLUM claims could soar after judges upheld appeals by two gay men who were to be deported.

ASYLUM: Judges upheld appeals by two gay men who were to be deported []

The men, from Iran and Cameroon, had been refused asylum by the Appeal Court under Labour on the grounds that they could avoid ill-treatment by hiding their sexuality or behaving discreetly.

But the Supreme Court overturned their deportation yesterday. The cases will now be reconsidered.

Campaigners last night warned it could mean millions might try to claim they are gay to qualify for asylum in Britain. Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger said gay people’s right to live freely must be protected.

He said: “Just as male hetero­sexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically-coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.”

MigrationWatchUK chairman Sir Andrew Green warned: “This could lead to a potentially massive expansion of asylum claims as it could apply to literally millions around the world.

“An applicant has now only to show that he [or
she] is homosexual and intends to return and live openly in one of the
many countries where it is illegal, to be granted asylum in the UK. The judges are no doubt interpreting the letter
of the international convention correctly but the consequences are
potentially huge.

“The principle of asylum is, rightly, widely supported but it should be a matter of domestic law. It
is high time that we reviewed our adherence to an international
convention drawn up nearly 60 years ago in entirely different
circumstances.”

Conservative MP Philip Davies
said: “It’s a dangerous game to play to go down this line because it’s
quite feasible that this could offer an ideal line of defence for
someone who wants to try to avoid being kicked out of the country,
whether it is true or not that they are gay.

“By
its very nature, it’s very difficult to prove one way or another. My
concern would be that this may well be exploited by some people as a
way of avoiding deportation.”

Home Secretary
Theresa May welcomed the Supreme Court ruling saying it was in line
with the Government’s pledge not to deport asylum seekers who had fled
their countries because their sexuality put them at “proven risk” of
jail, torture or execution.

But yesterday Lord
Hope, Supreme Court deputy president who chaired the hearing, predicted
that more and more gays and lesbians may seek protection in Britain if
it was denied in their home countries.

He said
that persecution of them had increased around the world, because of
Iran’s “ultra-conservative interpretation of Islamic law’’ and “rampant
homophobic teaching’’ by right-wing evangelical Christian churches in
much of sub-Saharan Africa.

“It is one of the
most demanding social issues of our time. Our own government has
pledged to do what it can to resolve the problem but it seems likely to
grow and to remain with us for many years,’’ said Lord Hope.

His
court ruled that the Court of Appeal’s previous decision breached the
1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees which defines refugees and
their rights.

The Convention provides that
members of a social group, which can include those with the same sexual
orientation, are entitled to asylum if they can show they have a well-
founded fear of persecution at home.

The court
said immigration tribunals should decide if the applicant is gay and if
they would face persecution at home if they lived openly. If they chose
to keep their sexuality secret for social reasons, such as not wanting
to upset parents, they should be refused.

One
of the men in the case – known only as applicant “T” – had appealed
against a decision that he had to return to Cameroon, where gays can be
jailed for up to five years and where he had been attacked by a mob
after he was seen kissing a male partner. Applicant “J” had been told
he should behave discreetly in Iran, where homosexual acts can be
punished with public flogging or execution.

The
Court of Appeal had found that both men could conceal their sexual
orientation to avoid the risk of being persecuted and neither had a
“well-founded fear of persecution” which entitled them to protection.

But
after yesterday’s ruling asylum decisions will now be considered under
new rules. Mrs May stressed that decisions would still be made on a
“case-by-case” basis.

Jill Roberts, of Refugee
Action, said: “We are relieved that the Supreme Court has acknowledged
that the discretion test is unacceptable and was effectively asking gay
people to deny their own identity and live with the daily threat of
discovery.’’

Comments Unavailable

Sorry, we are unable to accept comments about this article
at the moment. However, you will find some great articles
which you can comment on right now in our
Comment section.